What does class warfare really look like?

By Meghan Murphy-Gill |Print |Share

blogNews

Last night I was listening to NPR. Robert Seigel was interviewing House Republican David Dreier[1] about the pay roll tax cuts. Near the end of the interview, Siegel points out that “Democrats argue that if there were a 2-percent tax cut expiring right now for rich people, for high income taxpayers, you guys would all be checking, you know, to see if your pledges against raising taxes would be violated by doing this. It's much simpler when it's for people who make less money, who make $50,000 a year as opposed to $250,000.” It’s a good point and one I was eager to hear Dreier respond to.

I should have expected what I heard: “Well, you know, that's the standard class warfare, us versus them argument, and I don't accept it,” Dreier said. My blood pressure immediately started rising, and didn't stop because rather than stop Dreier right there and call him on his blatant use of baseless rhetoric, Seigel allowed him to continue spouting off buzz words like potitical prattle until the end of the interview.

We have to drop this whole notion that a tax policy that benefits the middle class, even helps to restore it, is somehow “class warfare.” Why? Because this is what class warfare looks like:

Jean Duplessis-Bertaux (1747-1819), Prise du palais des Tuileries

Until "the American people," as politicians love to say, are out on the street kslaying the wealthy and the government that protects them, we do not have a class war. And no one is calling for it. No one wants that.